A 12" woofer that I've never seen measured in the @Hificompass.com way (sine sweep, 20mm, low self noise, high SPL capable microphones)
Manufacturer page:
https://www.products-peerless.com/en/transducer/207
Here's one view:
If we change the view of the website, it can look like this:
Lesson 1:
Scale matters!
Here's the VituixCAD2 Enclosure simulation:
Here it is in my actual cabinet, a 1cu foot sealed cabinet with medium fiberglass filling. Note the close correlation at 100Hz, but slightly more output at 20Hz due to the fiberglass filling.
Here is the log chip / exponential sine sweep at 2.83V drive:
Lesson 2: VituixCAD2 Enclosure simulation is very close to practice!
Now at 8.95V (+10dB)
Now at 28.3V (+20dB)
Yes yes, you say. But how can we compare to other woofers?
We'll need to equalize for the same SPL, surely! Here it is at ~85dB, between 40Hz and 262Hz.
There is a low pass filter for an acoustic LR4 @380Hz, which is how it was used in my system, hence the drooping high end.
Here it is again, with harmonics shown: -20 to -100dB down between 40Hz and 262Hz:
What happens when one doesn't do their homework properly*, and decides to install two into a 100L cabinet?
Part 2: *as implemented during COVID-19:
Simulation:
Two 12" woofers in 100L with 2.83V (~2W into 4 ohm)
vs
One 10" little engine that could in 22L with 9V: (~10W into 8 ohm)
What the upper 2 lines show is a 8dB advantage for excursion limited maximum SPL for the pair of 12" woofers...
On the other hand, the two lines are almost superimposed- the 10” in 22L plays with virtually the same frequency response as the pair of 12" woofers in a 100L box, ut it needs more voltage/power to do so- 9V into 8 ohms (~10W) vs 2.83V into 4 ohms (~2W)
Here's the measurement comparison:
Lesson 3: this David vs Goliath battle to bend Hoffman's Iron Law is interesting to this author...
Conflict of Interest Disclaimer:
I hereby declare that I have no financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could influence the content, opinions, or decisions expressed in this post. My views and statements are made without external influence.
Edit: April 29, 2025:
Standard twin vs Double reverse inverted
Manufacturer page:
https://www.products-peerless.com/en/transducer/207
Here's one view:
If we change the view of the website, it can look like this:
Lesson 1:
Scale matters!
Here's the VituixCAD2 Enclosure simulation:
Here it is in my actual cabinet, a 1cu foot sealed cabinet with medium fiberglass filling. Note the close correlation at 100Hz, but slightly more output at 20Hz due to the fiberglass filling.
Here is the log chip / exponential sine sweep at 2.83V drive:
Look!- that dip around 500Hz in the datasheet, can be seen in the nearfield!
Lesson 2: VituixCAD2 Enclosure simulation is very close to practice!
Now at 8.95V (+10dB)
Now at 28.3V (+20dB)
Yes yes, you say. But how can we compare to other woofers?
We'll need to equalize for the same SPL, surely! Here it is at ~85dB, between 40Hz and 262Hz.
There is a low pass filter for an acoustic LR4 @380Hz, which is how it was used in my system, hence the drooping high end.
Here it is again, with harmonics shown: -20 to -100dB down between 40Hz and 262Hz:
85dB
At 95dB:
At 105dB
What happens when one doesn't do their homework properly*, and decides to install two into a 100L cabinet?
Simulation:
Two 12" woofers in 100L with 2.83V (~2W into 4 ohm)
vs
One 10" little engine that could in 22L with 9V: (~10W into 8 ohm)
What the upper 2 lines show is a 8dB advantage for excursion limited maximum SPL for the pair of 12" woofers...
On the other hand, the two lines are almost superimposed- the 10” in 22L plays with virtually the same frequency response as the pair of 12" woofers in a 100L box, ut it needs more voltage/power to do so- 9V into 8 ohms (~10W) vs 2.83V into 4 ohms (~2W)
Here's the measurement comparison:
Lesson 3: this David vs Goliath battle to bend Hoffman's Iron Law is interesting to this author...
Conflict of Interest Disclaimer:
I hereby declare that I have no financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could influence the content, opinions, or decisions expressed in this post. My views and statements are made without external influence.
Edit: April 29, 2025:
Standard twin vs Double reverse inverted
Last edited:
There's a lot of data in that post, so the interpretation was convoluted.
My discussion summary would be-
In terms of frequency response, in a 50L closed box, the 12" P830845 has a 4dB sensitivity advantage over what a PTT10.0X08 has in 22L. In terms of maximum SPL, it has a 2dB advantage.
To match the SPL at 95dB, a single 830845 needs 5.65V, the PTT10.0X needs 9V.
The last graph in post #1 was a pair of P830845 (Goliath) vs a single PTT10.0X08 (David)
My discussion summary would be-
In terms of frequency response, in a 50L closed box, the 12" P830845 has a 4dB sensitivity advantage over what a PTT10.0X08 has in 22L. In terms of maximum SPL, it has a 2dB advantage.
To match the SPL at 95dB, a single 830845 needs 5.65V, the PTT10.0X needs 9V.
The last graph in post #1 was a pair of P830845 (Goliath) vs a single PTT10.0X08 (David)
The only thing I care about with subwoofers, is BL(x) graphs.
Followed by Kms(x) as well as DIS motor stability.
Next a simple distortion graph to see how and where all the distortion issues are from cone break-up etc.
Although, usually that's just resonance peak frequency divided by 3.
(but there are some out there with unexpected issues).
The XLS and XXLS woofers have been tested by many many others in the past.
Good performer, but these days there are more affordable alternatives.
Besides the fact that buying any Peerless drivers these days is adventure of headaches.
I don't find distortion graphs all the useful below 100Hz.
It's not very representative for anything, even less so when the freq resp isn't the same in comparisons.
Followed by Kms(x) as well as DIS motor stability.
Next a simple distortion graph to see how and where all the distortion issues are from cone break-up etc.
Although, usually that's just resonance peak frequency divided by 3.
(but there are some out there with unexpected issues).
The XLS and XXLS woofers have been tested by many many others in the past.
Good performer, but these days there are more affordable alternatives.
Besides the fact that buying any Peerless drivers these days is adventure of headaches.
I don't find distortion graphs all the useful below 100Hz.
It's not very representative for anything, even less so when the freq resp isn't the same in comparisons.
I use 6 of the older 92 dB xxls 830 847 and they are supergreat woofers
I mean a linear xmax at +-12,5 mm is something to really work with!
I was very happy with the 830847s in my built in Unity horn build. The room structure would start making noise before the woofers showed any stress.
Can you please name 2-3 of them, because it would be very good to know?
Potent affordable 12 inch woofer are for me very hard to find.
Indian?
I know one from Indonesia.
The one from the land of the free, although made in People's Republic, are also quite good.
They have been tested for decades in Hobby Hifi etc etc.
But again, I only care about the Klippel LSI results for subwoofers.
Dayton RSS subs are pretty good, SB Acoustic subs as well.
Redcatt made some drivers that behave very similar;
https://www.redcatt.net/web/product.html?speaker=Sub-woofer
(bottom of the page, although it seems only 10 inch for now)
For OEMs there is even more choice in the same price range.
Globally.
Getting a Peerless/Tymphany that's still in stock and available is the hard part.
At shops like Soundimport, the XXLS sits around 200-300 euro, depending what variant you need.
SB acoustics is around 250-260 euro
Dayton around 300 euro for the RSS variant, although the MX12 is cheaper.
Those prices will be very different in the US.
At Parts-Express most of these speakers sit around 200-230 USD.
I did say more affordable, seems that prices have shifted again.
@ tktran303
So 830845 has lower distortion than 835017 even though the TS parameters are better on the latter? Have you tried measuring with the magnet facing outwards? Scan-speak made a copy of the XXLS series and a measurement suggest that an outward facing magnet would correct misalignment to some degree. https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...covery-26w-4558t00-10-aluminum-cone-subwoofer
So 830845 has lower distortion than 835017 even though the TS parameters are better on the latter? Have you tried measuring with the magnet facing outwards? Scan-speak made a copy of the XXLS series and a measurement suggest that an outward facing magnet would correct misalignment to some degree. https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...covery-26w-4558t00-10-aluminum-cone-subwoofer
Last edited:
How can TS parameters be "better" exactly?
Unless you're looking for a very specific scenario.
Scan-Speak never made "a copy", the IP was shared between.
So they just used and made accordingly.
20 years ago the 830845 Klippel'ed by user npdang at diymobileaudio.com
Here is the link:
Unfortunately the images are no longer there, even though @DcibeL and I have seen it (post post #6, #8 and #12 respectively) and can attest that it Klippel'd in at 13mm (the lowest of Bl(x), Kms(x) and Le(x) by the usual definition. A lollipop for anyone who can figure out where the images are. I've tried the Web Archive without luck...
Today the XXLS 830845 is $189 /€199, whilst the Dayton RS is higher priced. What a perverse universe we live in.
But IMHO the market is simple- People like you and me vote with our wallets.
If there are buyers, they will continue to be produced.
And yes, I have measured the 835017 and it has lower harmonic distortion performance.
I do not understand why this would be the case, so I have not published this publicly, but @5th element , when I showed him the results, but also puzzled. It is the alu cone? Is it the 4 ohm impedance. Is it a defective unit. I have 2 on hand, vs 4 of the 830845, I suppose I could drag the other one out and test on one fine day (quiet night).
Perhaps Carsten Tinggaard would know, as it was he who worked on the XXLS when he was at Peerless, before Point Source Acoustics. But he now works at Purifi, so it would probably be seen as poor form to comment on a product from a previous employer... I mean the PTT8.0X and 10X 4 ohm alu is just streets ahead...
Here is the link:
Unfortunately the images are no longer there, even though @DcibeL and I have seen it (post post #6, #8 and #12 respectively) and can attest that it Klippel'd in at 13mm (the lowest of Bl(x), Kms(x) and Le(x) by the usual definition. A lollipop for anyone who can figure out where the images are. I've tried the Web Archive without luck...
Today the XXLS 830845 is $189 /€199, whilst the Dayton RS is higher priced. What a perverse universe we live in.
But IMHO the market is simple- People like you and me vote with our wallets.
If there are buyers, they will continue to be produced.
And yes, I have measured the 835017 and it has lower harmonic distortion performance.
I do not understand why this would be the case, so I have not published this publicly, but @5th element , when I showed him the results, but also puzzled. It is the alu cone? Is it the 4 ohm impedance. Is it a defective unit. I have 2 on hand, vs 4 of the 830845, I suppose I could drag the other one out and test on one fine day (quiet night).
Perhaps Carsten Tinggaard would know, as it was he who worked on the XXLS when he was at Peerless, before Point Source Acoustics. But he now works at Purifi, so it would probably be seen as poor form to comment on a product from a previous employer... I mean the PTT8.0X and 10X 4 ohm alu is just streets ahead...
Last edited:
Large signal measurements (DATS LA) for the 835017: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15YaezPDEM/
Pretty good BL curve, otherwise poor?
Pretty good BL curve, otherwise poor?